I assume walking would be no good? I can imagine it would distort results as it is more efficient at certain slow paces than running

the question comes up because I was wondering as to how can someone do test running at MAF-20 if they are only capable of 15:30min/mile pace at MAF?

My 5kph is about 19:20 per mile and I was running. I haven't tried it with walking in any of the tests, or any part of them. What generally happens if he tries to walk then run is the HR will spike up when running begins--could skew the resultt. If he can get running by MAF -15, the test should go correctly. He might be able to walk the whole test. It's possible you could test on a stationary bike as well. I haven't tried it on one, but I think I will eventually.

My 5kph is about 19:20 per mile and I was running. I haven't tried it with walking in any of the tests, or any part of them. What generally happens if he tries to walk then run is the HR will spike up when running begins--could skew the resultt. If he can get running by MAF -15, the test should go correctly. He might be able to walk the whole test. It's possible you could test on a stationary bike as well. I haven't tried it on one, but I think I will eventually.

--Jimmy

by MAF-15 do you mean 180-age-15? or 180-age-5-15? (-5 for beginner/restarting beginner/etc).

as for the bike suggestion: on a stationary bike his HR is very different. he can't push much past 135 or so. so not sure how a graph could be generated that way if the HR won't go up.

I will add that even my HR is also very different on such a stat. bike. I once tried it and (after warm-up) I managed to push HR to 164 for a few seconds but I could not keep it up quads-wise and it went back to 150's and even that was uncomfortable for my quads. my 180-age MAF is 153, and that was slightly uncomfortable because the resistance was too high and I didn't like that - but at lower resistance I could not really get the HR up to the 150's. OTOH, I was able to do 90rpm at lower resistance in high 130's HR-wise, and that was feeling like proper aerobic movement for the quads. if I went to a higher resistance -and lower rpm, obviously- to push my HR higher, then my quads started feeling some burning....and no chance going for even 1 hour with burning quads. same thing for him but for him it's a much lower HR than mine..

so based on these experiences, I'm not sure that using such a bike is a useful test for estimating HR profile for running? especially as the burning does not happen at these above mentioned HR's when running. true both for me and for him. I suspect it is true for all people, not just the two of us. I've heard about similar experiences from some of my running buddies, e.g. one of them has a maxHR in the 190's for running, but on a stat. bike she has a maxHR of 135. quads simply give up if she tries to get the HR to go higher.

though, it is interesting that on a different kind of stationary bike, called "spinning bike" (correct expression?), I can hold around 180 for a long time. at least when I tried it a while ago. somehow that's different. more aerobic?! well, 180 wasn't terribly aerobic, because quads were burning slightly - but maintainably. lower than 170 was easy enough for the muscles on the spinning bike.

I have not asked other people about HR experiences with spinning, but it seems that a spinning bike could be somewhat "better"..."closer" to running. I don't know why. that kind of bike could perhaps be used for testing...

and again based on past experiences, "real" biking (road bike) is even easier if the goal is to push HR up, especially if going uphill. but even on flat ground, no problem keeping the HR somewhat high without any quads problem. it's the same experience for my friend.

as for walking, that could possibly be used with some incline on the treadmill? without that, I again don't know how high the HR can go with plain walking, though I think it is possible to get past 180-age on flat ground a bit if walking pretty hard. with uphill walking that's definitely not a problem.

by MAF-15 do you mean 180-age-15? or 180-age-5-15? (-5 for beginner/restarting beginner/etc).

as for the bike suggestion: on a stationary bike his HR is very different. he can't push much past 135 or so. so not sure how a graph could be generated that way if the HR won't go up.

I will add that even my HR is also very different on such a stat. bike. I once tried it and (after warm-up) I managed to push HR to 164 for a few seconds but I could not keep it up quads-wise and it went back to 150's and even that was uncomfortable for my quads. my 180-age MAF is 153, and that was slightly uncomfortable because the resistance was too high and I didn't like that - but at lower resistance I could not really get the HR up to the 150's. OTOH, I was able to do 90rpm at lower resistance in high 130's HR-wise, and that was feeling like proper aerobic movement for the quads. if I went to a higher resistance -and lower rpm, obviously- to push my HR higher, then my quads started feeling some burning....and no chance going for even 1 hour with burning quads. same thing for him but for him it's a much lower HR than mine..

so based on these experiences, I'm not sure that using such a bike is a useful test for estimating HR profile for running? especially as the burning does not happen at these above mentioned HR's when running. true both for me and for him. I suspect it is true for all people, not just the two of us. I've heard about similar experiences from some of my running buddies, e.g. one of them has a maxHR in the 190's for running, but on a stat. bike she has a maxHR of 135. quads simply give up if she tries to get the HR to go higher.

though, it is interesting that on a different kind of stationary bike, called "spinning bike" (correct expression?), I can hold around 180 for a long time. at least when I tried it a while ago. somehow that's different. more aerobic?! well, 180 wasn't terribly aerobic, because quads were burning slightly - but maintainably. lower than 170 was easy enough for the muscles on the spinning bike.

I have not asked other people about HR experiences with spinning, but it seems that a spinning bike could be somewhat "better"..."closer" to running. I don't know why. that kind of bike could perhaps be used for testing...

and again based on past experiences, "real" biking (road bike) is even easier if the goal is to push HR up, especially if going uphill. but even on flat ground, no problem keeping the HR somewhat high without any quads problem. it's the same experience for my friend.

as for walking, that could possibly be used with some incline on the treadmill? without that, I again don't know how high the HR can go with plain walking, though I think it is possible to get past 180-age on flat ground a bit if walking pretty hard. with uphill walking that's definitely not a problem.

The test goes like this:

1. Treadmill should be set to kilometers per hour. I used 1% incline--could probably be done with 0%.

2. Take 30 minutes to warm-up to MAF-20. Just take 180-age-20. Make sure you're at MAF -20 at beginning of test.

5. You can run the test as long as you want. EG> You can stop at MAF+30, or your near your MHR. You should go at least MAF +20.

You're trying to establish the MAF deflection point, I wanted room around the 180-age just in the case someone's RQ was really bad and had an 180-age -10 or worse. Need to establish the initial curve. Warming is very important.

Walking or bike may or may not work--haven't a clue--it would be a different test than this one--just thinking out loud really. just try it as written. I'm sure he can run slow enough if I can run slow enough. Even if it is uncomfortable. It doesn't take long before you're running faster during the test.

5. You can run the test as long as you want. EG> You can stop at MAF+30, or your near your MHR. You should go at least MAF +20.

You're trying to establish the MAF deflection point, I wanted room around the 180-age just in the case someone's RQ was really bad and had an 180-age -10 or worse. Need to establish the initial curve. Warming is very important.

Walking or bike may or may not work--haven't a clue--it would be a different test than this one--just thinking out loud really. just try it as written. I'm sure he can run slow enough if I can run slow enough. Even if it is uncomfortable. It doesn't take long before you're running faster during the test.

--Jimmy

thanks - my question was not about these steps, I totally understood the idea behind the extended HR range for the testing (from 180-age minus 20 to plus 20). this is exactly why I was talking about how I do not find a simple stationary bike a good way for the test as it is impossible to get that range tested for quite a few people.

so, it seems for my friend the initial part will be either the "wogging" at something slower than 20min/mile or walking with incline.

thanks - my question was not about these steps, I totally understood the idea behind the extended HR range for the testing (from 180-age minus 20 to plus 20). this is exactly why I was talking about how I do not find a simple stationary bike a good way for the test as it is impossible to get that range tested for quite a few people.

so, it seems for my friend the initial part will be either the "wogging" at something slower than 20min/mile or walking with incline.

I know, I was just putting those there to not only highlight the part we were talking about, but also to remember how the test went!

You could devise a walking test with incline. Like a stress test. That's how my V02max/RQ test was done. I got my running speed to 10:00 miles, then he kept increasing the incline until we maxed out at 12%. Since you are just trying to see the deflection point, you might be able to pull it off with walking--I just don't know how fast to increase the incline.

The bike might be difficult as speed is difficult to control precisely.

The Balke protocol uses a constant walking speed with continuously increasing incline. The standard Balke protocol uses a 5.5kph speed with 1 degree incline change each minute but the same model can be used with faster speeds in order to reach higher HRs. As a guide, using the standard Balke program I start at about 90bpm and finish at 15 degrees at about 130bpm but at 6.4kph I'd finish at about 155bpm.
Treadmills usually allow 1/2 degree incline changes, but you'd have to experiment with how quickly to increase the incline; there might be different effects at different rates of increase.
Mixing walking and running includes a HR spike, as Jimmy said, at the change to running. I have experimented with walking and running at speeds at which I can do both and running 'costs' 10bpm more than walking at the same speed.
Also I consider this test has to be done on treadmills because they control the speed. Even better would be if a treadmill programme was making the speed changes instead of the user pressing buttons and even better if no buttons had to be pressed on the HRM.
Currently I have such a HRM that will record anything, and a treadmill with limited customizability of a progammme. With limited experimentation in the last twelve months I have yet to see anything like a deflection point. Someday I'll get the graphs posted for you all to peruse.

The Balke protocol uses a constant walking speed with continuously increasing incline. The standard Balke protocol uses a 5.5kph speed with 1 degree incline change each minute but the same model can be used with faster speeds in order to reach higher HRs. As a guide, using the standard Balke program I start at about 90bpm and finish at 15 degrees at about 130bpm but at 6.4kph I'd finish at about 155bpm. Treadmills usually allow 1/2 degree incline changes, but you'd have to experiment with how quickly to increase the incline; there might be different effects at different rates of increase. Mixing walking and running includes a HR spike, as Jimmy said, at the change to running. I have experimented with walking and running at speeds at which I can do both and running 'costs' 10bpm more than walking at the same speed. Also I consider this test has to be done on treadmills because they control the speed. Even better would be if a treadmill programme was making the speed changes instead of the user pressing buttons and even better if no buttons had to be pressed on the HRM. Currently I have such a HRM that will record anything, and a treadmill with limited customizability of a progammme. With limited experimentation in the last twelve months I have yet to see anything like a deflection point. Someday I'll get the graphs posted for you all to peruse.

thanks for that information about the protocol. according to that, these incline degree increases are the same as linear speed increases, right? maybe my friend could use that then.

on a related note: we also plan to compare how his HR recovers after working out 60mins in different zones (135-139, vs 140-144, vs higher). that could also be telling. in my case there are differences in HR recovery below a certain HR. I've been told that this shows degree of fat burning during the workout.

I'd like to see your graphs!

btw, I will get around to doing this myself when I'm 100% sure I recovered from the iron problems. until then it could distort results. from previous conconi test I know that I should expect to see a deflection point at my LT in this test.. I know conconi doesn't work for everyone but it does wonderfully show my LT, so I see a chance to find the other deflection point(s)

I plan to do it with my friend's help, he can do the job of pressing the buttons both on HRM and treadmill so I just need to focus on running.

rarian

posted: 6/4/2011 at 3:17 AMmodified: 6/4/2011 at 3:23 AM

I'm not sure of the relationship between increasing speed and increasing inclines; certainly increasing inclines at a higher stable speed gives a steeper graph. What I think is important for this test is to either have a stable speed with regular increase in incline, or as Jimmy has done a stable incline with increasing speed; ie a known steady increase in power against which any deflection points can be noticed. Not, as is common in VO2 tests that Jimmy and I have done which used protocols with an increase in speed to a point and then increase in incline.
Some of my data comes from a conconi type test where I hoped that the detailed data I can access with the HRM would prove definitive. However, there was nothing I could see in the detailed graph (2 second data) but my exercise physiologist friend only wanted to look at a less detailed graph (30 second data) where we both saw a small change in an otherwise straight line which he declared to be the sort of evidence you get from a Conconi test.
Actually that's what got me started on my series of tempo runs; to confirm what we had seen.
Curiously one of my graphs shows that in a Conconi type test where one increases speed at a regular distance eg 200metres, the number of heart beats in each 200 metres stays the same. One's HR climbs but the time to cover the distance reduces and they cancel out to leave the same number of beats.
!!!!! Why is it that I can't get paragraphs and other formatting to stay correct in my posts? They are fine in the posting window but disappear when the post is listed.

what significance does number of heart beats for X distance have? I'm curious, because I don't know.

I'll dig up my old conconi test and see if this heart beat stuff is true for mine.

the change (that indicates LTHR) in my test was very obvious and significant and my racing experience confirms it too. I guess I got lucky with that

I'll post that conconi chart if you are curious to see.

did your results get confirmed by tempo runs?

PS: as for the formatting: what browser are you using?

This time I'm quoting and I've got the formatting bar which I didn't have last time. It's not the browser, because previous posts were Ok and with the same browser.

There's no significance in the number of heart beats but in general each of us can cover a certain distance per beat whatever the speed. That distance is larger for faster runners, lesser for slower runners.

here is that conconi test (that's kph, not mph, haha), I did it in february 2010, when I was a very newbie runner (had been running only for 4-5 months), it was done on a track.

you can see I didn't really manage to do the lower HR's properly because it was a slow running pace and somehow it didn't really vary until HR went up to 160(I removed the data points between 140 and 160 as all showed the same)..so for MAF HR I'm going to have to do another test .

I don't know why it was like that, I did warm up before it.

anyway after that the rest of the test went okay(not executed perfect but okay-ish), and it shows the LT HR in the low 190's. (the pace belonging wasn't too far off either)

that correlates with my racing experiences since then (I had no races under my belt when I did that test).